Here's another thought: Try our best not to use the DailyMail (UK) as a source or citation for anything you ever do again in your life, or at least not here in the TB Forum. The reason is, it has a terrible global reputation for fear-mongering, exaggeration and playing to the crowds' lowest imaginable taste. Using this source, no matter how impressive in it's immediate appearance, will do more to damage your case and your reputation - right out of the starting gate! - than any statement or remark you might subsequently make in connection with that source or citation.

Although this is not entirely related to the opening post, the gravity mapping just underlines that the gravity constant (G) is misguided and would have implications on any gravity driven model. The question whether it may be related to charge is a good one, and Wallace Thornhill has brought up the very same issue. I really recommend the DVD set of his seminar at SIS this summer, where he summarized the issues of current cosmology and gravity, as well as explaining Plasma Cosmology and The Electric Universe.

I realize of course that the topographical features of the computer simulated globe have been "enhanced" in order to make the gravity stats more visually apprehendable ...

But I feel that clever visual representation should help intellectually honest ones to intuitively realize this: if our planet formed as a result of a gravity-driven coalescing of a spinning cloud of matter, it wouldn't have resulted in a truly round planet. Thus gravity is NOT be the primary driving force behind planet formation.

In light of EU observations and theory, should we reexamine the current conclusions regarding the masses of planets and stars? From what I understand the masses of these bodies is based on Newtonian physics. And we now know that the much stronger electrical force is in full effect in the cosmos. Maybe some of these massive bodies are much lighter than we expect since their mass was possibly erroneously deduced by the gravitational model.

Awesome, I need to spend more time on holoscience, they also have the links to full text peer reviewed papers.

I watched a documentary on Velikovsky the other day. It seems that one of the biggest criticisms of his theories was that he described planets changing orbits, a feat that would almost impossible according to the Newtonian gravitational model, but makes a lot of sense in the context of stable orbits with feedback mechanisms (ie planet get's pulled back to the stable orbital path when going astray) as suggested in the holoscience links. We are very fortunate to have bright minds (I would call them "masters") such as Talbott, Thronhill, Dion Scott and the others .

Some years ago I wondered about this strange coincidence of almost identical surface gravity on most planets in our solar system. I could not find any explanation yet, except now with the EU postulation of gravity possibly created by an electrostatic induced dipole effect on atoms. As between every planet's surface and its upper atmosphere an electrostatic field can be measured, there might be a connection why every planet with a thick atmosphere creates a surface gravity near that of Earth. Jupiter as being in a state between a sun and planet cannot be compared. Titan falls out of this scheme though.

Does anybody have another suggestion for this strange quantization of the surface gravity factors?

Holger Isenberg wrote:Some years ago I wondered about this strange coincidence of almost identical surface gravity on most planets in our solar system. I could not find any explanation yet, except now with the EU postulation of gravity possibly created by an electrostatic induced dipole effect on atoms. As between every planet's surface and its upper atmosphere an electrostatic field can be measured, there might be a connection why every planet with a thick atmosphere creates a surface gravity near that of Earth. Jupiter as being in a state between a sun and planet cannot be compared. Titan falls out of this scheme though.

Does anybody have another suggestion for this strange quantization of the surface gravity factors?

Surface Gravity in our solars system:

Mars 0.376Mercury 0.38

Uranus 0.886Venus 0.904Earth 1Saturn 1.065Neptun 1.14

Jupiter 2.528

Sun 27.94

Eros 0.0059Ceres 0.029Pluto 0.067Titan 0.14Moon 0.1654

source: Wikipedia

Really interesting!

The earths gravity is fluctuating quite a bit depending on where you are standing, which means that the constant G is an approximation. If it was constant at a constant distance from the earth it would be possible to quantify the value, but for now it has to be measured at the macroscopic scale.

As a side note: This is also why theoretical physicists want to find gravity particles (excitation of the hypothesized gravity field) so that they actually CAN quantify gravity with some set property. This would unify the large and the microscopic scale, but are they looking in the wrong place? So far the most prevailing theories of unification are String theory and Loop quantum gravity. The point is that quantization is in essence a search for the most fundamental particles of nature and their interactions, and so far the result has been the standard model.

I have my doubts to the theories laid forth above, but I just thought I'd shed some light on what is usually attributed to the term "quantization" in physics just so we are on the same page.

ANYWAY: I did a little searching around the web for gravitational anomalies and there is quite some work done on our own planet:)

They note that there has been significant deposits of cooled off volcanic rock 2000 meters underground. The implications of this anomaly is that it's suggesting that "gravity" is relating to the composition of materials deposited underneath us.

He ends the talk by noting that it seems as if the distribution of the elements closer to the core of the earth follows their ionization energy. Here is a chart of ionization energy in atoms plotted against their atomic number:http://www.webelements.com/periodicity/ ... index.html

I actually did a plot against the atomic number and ionization energy and found the following distribution of elements. The list is taken from wikipedia based on the most abundant elements in the solar system.

A very very tentative (remember this is only based on ionization and atomic weight) expected ideal distribution of elements in a Scott-Birkeland current flowing in free space with N-layers. Where a higher N is a layer closer to the core of the current:

Hydrogen-1 (N=1)Helium-4 (N=2)

Neon-20Nitrogen-14Carbon-12Oxygen-16Argon-36

Sulfur-32Magnesium-24Silicon-28Sodium-23

Aluminum-27Calcium-40Iron-56Nickel-58 (N=13)

If planetary structure is not related to conventional mass-density = gravity, but aligned dipoles, maybe a significant atmosphere of gaseous components is only possible if the degree of planetary ionization is high enough?

My hypothesis to your observation above would be that of emergence. You see an atmosphere because the planet has reached a level of ionization that satisfies the possibility of keeping said gaseous atmosphere. The surface gravity would then actually reflect the degree of planetary ionization.

There is probably heaps and heaps of wrongly drawn conclusions here. My planetary science knowledge is extremely limited so of course rebuttals are always welcome

Zendo wrote:If planetary structure is not related to conventional mass-density = gravity, but aligned dipoles, maybe a significant atmosphere of gaseous components is only possible if the degree of planetary ionization is high enough?

My hypothesis to your observation above would be that of emergence. You see an atmosphere because the planet has reached a level of ionization that satisfies the possibility of keeping said gaseous atmosphere. The surface gravity would then actually reflect the degree of planetary ionization.

Hi Zendo,

There might be a connection indeed! I identified the following 5 groups with just looking at the surface gravity: moons, dead planets, active planets, trans-planets, stars. Let's ignore moons as they are easy distinguishable from normal planets by their orbits. The real planets with a surface gravity less than 1 are only those with none to almost none atmosphere, which are Mercury and Mars. Another distinctive feature of those two is their lack of a planetary scale magnetic field. Although Mercury has dipole field, it is almost non-existent with 1% the strength of the field of Earth. All other planets with surface gravity of 1 or almost 1 have a thick atmosphere and a strong dipole magnetic field.

So we have a measurable indicator if a planet is still "active", just be taking a look at its surface gravity. This could become interesting is the surface gravity of planet in other solar systems can be measured.

Then there is the next group, with only Jupiter as member, which has all the features of the active planet's group and also some features of the star group. The star features are inducing a magnetic field on its moons and emitting energy of its own. Of course Saturn shows the very same feature but on a much smaller scale and Jupiter has in addition a much higher angular momentum with 60% of the hole solar system, Saturn only 20%. But the differentiation between Saturn with gravity 1 and Jupiter with 2.5 is not good yet, I need to find some more obvious difference.

What if gravity was somewhat like the spacetime warping of standard theory?But instead of gravity warping "space", the supply of aether to mass, as mass energy source, created a deficit that appears as gravity. The aether field would move toward mass and distort, depending on volume of mass.

And because all aether is connected, the near instantaneous gravity pressure would be transmitted to nearby mass, as their aether distortion would be transmitted back.The distorted aether field would appear as an attraction.

Makes Newton happy...

"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.""Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one.""Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Mathis points to plate thickness (please note that Mathis does have his critics and I do not want to attract them into redundant conversations that might redirect attention from the focus of your thread -- Chr6).

From this you will notice that gravitational highs also follow plate seams and volcanic activity. This is because plates tend to be thicker where they meet. They get mashed against one another, increasing both density and thickness, just as you would expect.